National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing, 42529-42532 [E8-16746]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations hour Command Center via telephone at (415) 399–3547. (d) Effective period. This section is effective for the Festival of Sail-Parade of Ships from 11:59 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 23, 2008; for the mock cannon battle location ‘‘alpha’’ from 2 p.m. through 4:30 p.m. on July 25, 2008, and July 26, 2008; and for the mock cannon battle location ‘‘bravo’’ from 2 p.m. through 4:30 p.m. on July 24, 2008, and July 27, 2008. Dated: July 9, 2008. P.M. Gugg, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco. [FR Doc. E8–16674 Filed 7–22–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0086, FRL–8695–9] RIN 2060–AN80 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is issuing amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing. These amendments establish a new maximum achievable control technology floor level of control for existing and new combined hazardous air pollutants process vent streams containing inorganic and organic hazardous air pollutants and clarify the emission requirements for process vents by adding definitions for organic, inorganic, and combined hazardous air pollutant process vent streams that contain both organic and inorganic hazardous air pollutant. DATES: This final rule is effective on July 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0086. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243–05), NAICS code 1 Category Industry ..................................................... 334413 Federal government .................................. State/local/tribal government .................... ........................ ........................ rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES 1 North 42529 Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541– 0296; fax number: (919) 541–3207; email address: Schaefer.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document? C. Judicial Review II. Background Information III. Summary of the Final Amendments IV. Summary of Comments and Responses V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these final amendments include: Examples of regulated entities Semiconductor crystal growing facilities, semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities, semiconductor test and assembly facilities. Not affected. Not affected. American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7181 of the rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:57 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 214001 representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions). B. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 following address: https://www.epa.gov/ ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. C. Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 22, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rules that was E:\FR\FM\22JYR1.SGM 22JYR1 42530 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Moreover, under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. II. Background Information On May 22, 2003, we promulgated the NESHAP for semiconductor manufacturing, under section 112(d) of the CAA. (68 FR 27913); 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB). The NESHAP requires all semiconductor manufacturing facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to meet standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The NESHAP establishes emissions limitations for the control of HAP from semiconductor manufacturing operations. The compliance date for the NESHAP requirements was May 22, 2006. After promulgation, it was brought to our attention that while the NESHAP established separate emission standards for organic and inorganic HAP from process vents, one plant had a different process vent system. Specifically, we learned that this plant combined inorganic and organic vent streams into a single atmospheric process vent. At VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:57 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 214001 the time we developed the MACT standard, however, we had determined that since at least 1980 industry practice has been to strictly separate process vent emissions into streams containing either organic or inorganic HAP (71 FR 61701). This was because we were not aware of any sources that combined their inorganic and organic vent streams, and, therefore, had no data on such sources. Therefore, the NESHAP failed to account for the existence of combined organic and inorganic HAP process vents. On October 19, 2006, in order to address these combined process vent streams, we proposed amending the NESHAP by establishing emission standards for existing and new combined process vent streams (71 FR 61701). We proposed no control for the limited number of existing combined process vents. Additionally, for new and reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we proposed the requirement for inorganic HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently apply to inorganic HAP process vents and the requirement for organic HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently apply to organic HAP process vents (71 FR 61703). Further, we proposed new definitions that clarified the applicability of the NESHAP to inorganic, organic and combined HAP process vents. Subsequently, the DC Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Circuit 2007), found that our decision to set no control emission floors for source categories where the best performing sources did not use emission control technology was in direct contravention of CAA section 112(d)(3). In response to this decision, we issued a supplemental proposal on April 2, 2008 that proposed an emission limitation for existing and new combined HAP process vents. Specifically, we proposed that new and existing combined HAP process vents achieve a control level of 14.22 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (73 FR 17942). We also proposed no beyond the floor control options because we determined as prohibitive the costs associated with the one control option we evaluated. III. Summary of the Final Amendments In today’s rule we are taking final action on both our October 2006 (71 FR 61703), and April 2008 proposals (73 FR 17940). Therefore, we are finalizing, as proposed in October 2006, definitions that clarify the applicability of the NESHAP to inorganic, organic and combined HAP process vents. We are also promulgating, as proposed in April PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 2008, an emission limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new and existing combined HAP process vents. IV. Summary of Comments and Responses We received 3 comments on our October 2006 and April 2008 proposals. The commenters were generally supportive of both proposals. A summary of the significant issues raised in the comments are included below. Comment: One commenter expressed support for the development of a separate MACT floor level of control for combined HAP process vents contained in the April 2, 2008, proposal. The commenter stated, ‘‘This action appropriately recognizes that a limited number of process vents at older, existing facilities have unique emission characteristics that warrant distinction from the process vents used to establish the original MACT floor.’’ The commenter gave a description of the typical construction of a modern semiconductor facility indicating that clean rooms are situated on a single floor with semiconductor manufacturing tools arranged in cells of similar tools (e.g., web benches, furnaces, etc. are grouped together). The commenter stated that these features and other features in a modern semiconductor facility make the segregation and treatment of concentrated organic and inorganic HAP emission streams feasible. However, segregating emission streams into their organic and inorganic constituents was near infeasible for some older facilities, such as the one described by the commenter, where tools are located on three separate floors, and are not grouped together in cells according to tool function and type. Due to these reasons the commenter indicated strong support for EPA’s development of a separate MACT floor for combined HAP process vents. Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed changes to the standard are necessary to account for the limited number of older facilities that do not segregate their emissions due to facility design limitations. Today’s rule reflects our conclusion that a separate MACT floor for these facilities is appropriate. Therefore, as stated earlier we are promulgating definitions that clarify the applicability of the existing NESHAP and an emissions limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new and existing combined HAP process vents. E:\FR\FM\22JYR1.SGM 22JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews in the economic impact assessment for the existing rule. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review This action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the EO. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose any new information collection burden. These amendments clarify applicability of the final rule. Therefore, the Information Collection Request (ICR) has not been revised. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060–0519. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS codes 331511, 331512, and 331513); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities since we do not create any new requirements or burdens that were not already included VerDate Aug<31>2005 12:57 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 214001 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The final amendments are expected to result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 42531 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final amendments do not impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance. E:\FR\FM\22JYR1.SGM 22JYR1 42532 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 141 / Tuesday, July 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 104–114, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 12:57 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 214001 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: July 15, 2008. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows: I PART 63—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: I Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. These final amendments do not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources. VerDate Aug<31>2005 K. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the final amendments in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on July 22, 2008. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 2. Section 63.7184 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: I § 63.7184 What emission limitations, operating limits, and work practice standards must I meet? * * * * * (b) Process vents—organic HAP emissions. For each organic HAP process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(a)(2). (1) Reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the process vent stream by 98 percent by weight. (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted organic HAP from the process vent to less than or PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 equal to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv). (c) Process vents—inorganic HAP emissions. For each inorganic HAP process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must limit inorganic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system to a halogen scrubber meeting the requirements of §§ 63.983 (closed vent system requirements) and § 63.994 (halogen scrubber requirements); the applicable general monitoring requirements of § 63.996; the applicable performance test requirements; and the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements referenced therein. (1) Reduce the emissions of inorganic HAP from the process vent stream by 95 percent by weight. (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted inorganic HAP from the process vent to less than or equal to 0.42 ppmv. * * * * * (f) Process vents—combined HAP emissions. For each combined HAP process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the process vent to less than or equal to 14.22 ppmv. These limitations can be met by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of § 63.982(a)(2). 3. Section 63.7195 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical order for ‘‘Combined HAP process vent’’, ‘‘Organic HAP process vent’’, and ‘‘Inorganic HAP process vent’’ to read as follows: I § 63.7195 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Combined HAP process vent means a process vent that emits both inorganic and organic HAP to the atmosphere. * * * * * Inorganic HAP process vent means a process vent that emits only inorganic HAP to the atmosphere. Organic HAP process vent means a process vent that emits only organic HAP to the atmosphere. * * * * * [FR Doc. E8–16746 Filed 7–21–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\22JYR1.SGM 22JYR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 22, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42529-42532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16746]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, FRL-8695-9]
RIN 2060-AN80


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Semiconductor Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing amendments to the national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing. 
These amendments establish a new maximum achievable control technology 
floor level of control for existing and new combined hazardous air 
pollutants process vent streams containing inorganic and organic 
hazardous air pollutants and clarify the emission requirements for 
process vents by adding definitions for organic, inorganic, and 
combined hazardous air pollutant process vent streams that contain both 
organic and inorganic hazardous air pollutant.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 22, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing Docket, 
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-0296; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: Schaefer.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
III. Summary of the Final Amendments
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by these 
final amendments include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          334413  Semiconductor crystal
                                                  growing facilities,
                                                  semiconductor wafer
                                                  fabrication
                                                  facilities,
                                                  semiconductor test and
                                                  assembly facilities.
Federal government.............  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..  ..............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.7181 of the rule. If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the 
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative 
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following 
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information 
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of these final rules is available only by filing a petition for review 
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
September 22, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 
objection to these final rules that was

[[Page 42530]]

raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 
can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a 
mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f 
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public 
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period 
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) 
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the 
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should 
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a 
copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and 
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20004. Moreover, under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 
only an objection to these final rules that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by these final rules may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.

II. Background Information

    On May 22, 2003, we promulgated the NESHAP for semiconductor 
manufacturing, under section 112(d) of the CAA. (68 FR 27913); 40 CFR 
part 63, subpart BBBBB). The NESHAP requires all semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities that are major sources of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) to meet standards reflecting application of the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The NESHAP establishes 
emissions limitations for the control of HAP from semiconductor 
manufacturing operations. The compliance date for the NESHAP 
requirements was May 22, 2006.
    After promulgation, it was brought to our attention that while the 
NESHAP established separate emission standards for organic and 
inorganic HAP from process vents, one plant had a different process 
vent system. Specifically, we learned that this plant combined 
inorganic and organic vent streams into a single atmospheric process 
vent. At the time we developed the MACT standard, however, we had 
determined that since at least 1980 industry practice has been to 
strictly separate process vent emissions into streams containing either 
organic or inorganic HAP (71 FR 61701). This was because we were not 
aware of any sources that combined their inorganic and organic vent 
streams, and, therefore, had no data on such sources. Therefore, the 
NESHAP failed to account for the existence of combined organic and 
inorganic HAP process vents.
    On October 19, 2006, in order to address these combined process 
vent streams, we proposed amending the NESHAP by establishing emission 
standards for existing and new combined process vent streams (71 FR 
61701). We proposed no control for the limited number of existing 
combined process vents. Additionally, for new and reconstructed 
combined HAP process vents, we proposed the requirement for inorganic 
HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently 
apply to inorganic HAP process vents and the requirement for organic 
HAP process vents to be the same as the requirement that currently 
apply to organic HAP process vents (71 FR 61703). Further, we proposed 
new definitions that clarified the applicability of the NESHAP to 
inorganic, organic and combined HAP process vents.
    Subsequently, the DC Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 
(DC Circuit 2007), found that our decision to set no control emission 
floors for source categories where the best performing sources did not 
use emission control technology was in direct contravention of CAA 
section 112(d)(3). In response to this decision, we issued a 
supplemental proposal on April 2, 2008 that proposed an emission 
limitation for existing and new combined HAP process vents. 
Specifically, we proposed that new and existing combined HAP process 
vents achieve a control level of 14.22 parts per million by volume 
(ppmv) (73 FR 17942). We also proposed no beyond the floor control 
options because we determined as prohibitive the costs associated with 
the one control option we evaluated.

III. Summary of the Final Amendments

    In today's rule we are taking final action on both our October 2006 
(71 FR 61703), and April 2008 proposals (73 FR 17940). Therefore, we 
are finalizing, as proposed in October 2006, definitions that clarify 
the applicability of the NESHAP to inorganic, organic and combined HAP 
process vents. We are also promulgating, as proposed in April 2008, an 
emission limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new and existing combined HAP 
process vents.

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received 3 comments on our October 2006 and April 2008 
proposals. The commenters were generally supportive of both proposals. 
A summary of the significant issues raised in the comments are included 
below.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the development of a 
separate MACT floor level of control for combined HAP process vents 
contained in the April 2, 2008, proposal. The commenter stated, ``This 
action appropriately recognizes that a limited number of process vents 
at older, existing facilities have unique emission characteristics that 
warrant distinction from the process vents used to establish the 
original MACT floor.'' The commenter gave a description of the typical 
construction of a modern semiconductor facility indicating that clean 
rooms are situated on a single floor with semiconductor manufacturing 
tools arranged in cells of similar tools (e.g., web benches, furnaces, 
etc. are grouped together). The commenter stated that these features 
and other features in a modern semiconductor facility make the 
segregation and treatment of concentrated organic and inorganic HAP 
emission streams feasible. However, segregating emission streams into 
their organic and inorganic constituents was near infeasible for some 
older facilities, such as the one described by the commenter, where 
tools are located on three separate floors, and are not grouped 
together in cells according to tool function and type. Due to these 
reasons the commenter indicated strong support for EPA's development of 
a separate MACT floor for combined HAP process vents.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed changes to 
the standard are necessary to account for the limited number of older 
facilities that do not segregate their emissions due to facility design 
limitations. Today's rule reflects our conclusion that a separate MACT 
floor for these facilities is appropriate. Therefore, as stated earlier 
we are promulgating definitions that clarify the applicability of the 
existing NESHAP and an emissions limitation of 14.22 ppmv for new and 
existing combined HAP process vents.

[[Page 42531]]

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
These amendments clarify applicability of the final rule. Therefore, 
the Information Collection Request (ICR) has not been revised.
    However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously 
approved the information collection requirements contained in the 
existing regulations 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned 
OMB control number 2060-0519. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that meets 
the Small Business Administration size standards for small businesses 
found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 500 employees for NAICS codes 
331511, 331512, and 331513); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities since we do not 
create any new requirements or burdens that were not already included 
in the economic impact assessment for the existing rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector. The final amendments are expected to 
result in an overall reduction in expenditures for the private sector 
and are not expected to impact State, local, or tribal governments. 
Thus, the final amendments are not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final amendments do not 
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive 
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communication 
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 
comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final 
amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such 
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 
13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.

[[Page 42532]]

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-114, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. These final amendments do not relax the control measures 
on sources regulated by the rule and therefore will not cause emissions 
increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing these final 
amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the final amendments in the Federal 
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on July 22, 
2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 15, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63, 
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.


0
2. Section 63.7184 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and 
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7184  What emission limitations, operating limits, and work 
practice standards must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) Process vents--organic HAP emissions. For each organic HAP 
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must 
limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph (b)(1) 
or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met by venting 
emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system to any 
combination of control devices meeting the requirements of Sec.  
63.982(a)(2).
    (1) Reduce the emissions of organic HAP from the process vent 
stream by 98 percent by weight.
    (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted organic HAP 
from the process vent to less than or equal to 20 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv).
    (c) Process vents--inorganic HAP emissions. For each inorganic HAP 
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must 
limit inorganic HAP emissions to the level specified in paragraph 
(c)(1) or (2) of this section. These limitations can be met by venting 
emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system to a 
halogen scrubber meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.983 (closed 
vent system requirements) and Sec.  63.994 (halogen scrubber 
requirements); the applicable general monitoring requirements of Sec.  
63.996; the applicable performance test requirements; and the 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements referenced 
therein.
    (1) Reduce the emissions of inorganic HAP from the process vent 
stream by 95 percent by weight.
    (2) Reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted inorganic HAP 
from the process vent to less than or equal to 0.42 ppmv.
* * * * *
    (f) Process vents--combined HAP emissions. For each combined HAP 
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must 
reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the process 
vent to less than or equal to 14.22 ppmv. These limitations can be met 
by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent 
system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements 
of Sec.  63.982(a)(2).

0
3. Section 63.7195 is amended by adding definitions in alphabetical 
order for ``Combined HAP process vent'', ``Organic HAP process vent'', 
and ``Inorganic HAP process vent'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7195  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Combined HAP process vent means a process vent that emits both 
inorganic and organic HAP to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
    Inorganic HAP process vent means a process vent that emits only 
inorganic HAP to the atmosphere.
    Organic HAP process vent means a process vent that emits only 
organic HAP to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-16746 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P